Casey Anthony Trial

[Bigbear]

Originally Posted by Memories for Life

Every searching of this "wet" area was done thru most months of the year and every time this area was bone dry and dusty. Why was the one instance that the body was "found" was the area suddenly "declared" a wetland? Best way cover-up to the liquid residue that would be found on the remains! Why make sure the body is "placed" in water? Because someone knew that Caylee had drowned by accident! The lowlife abusing father didn't want anyone finding out he molested his daughter AND grandchild so he couldn't bear the investigation for an accidental drowning. Why did he go buy a gun? His words "he wanted to force people to confess to killing Caylee!" He needed to pin it on somebody else!

The meter man tried to get some of his fellow co-workers to help "discover" the body by trying to tempt them into this exact same spot months earlier as he shouted to them that he found something "weird". His coworkers knew this guy was a fool so they ignored him. Weeks later, he called 911 to report finding "bones" in the woods (there is a documented police report of this actually happening) -- police arrive (knowing Caylee has been missing a long time from a home a short distance away) and search the same wooded area that had already been searched hundreds of times earlier by dozens of different agencies (some with cadaver dogs who smell dead bodies from miles away) -- they find nothing anywhere. Suddenly, when Caylee is discovered in this same area, the police must do the rapid tap dance to save face!

Were the hell are you getting your facts from

[cbtslave4u2]

Originally Posted by Memories for Life

You don't know anything about Florida trials! The prosecution will now dispute the defense case.

http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-...173849940.html

i misunderstood the news reporter, excuse me. i meant by the weekend the jury will deciede.

http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2011/jun/...defense-rests/

[alex_carter]

I've been watching it on GMA. I don't know, and I'm not a lawyer, but I think her best defense now would be to try for an insanity plea. With everything she's made up they'd certainly go for it I'm sure.

Also, not that I'm defending her, but I have a gut feeling that she didn't do it. My head says she's guilty, but my gut says no. I'm not sure how I feel about it though.

[cbtslave4u2]

Her lawyers tried that last weekend. They filled a motion to have her evaluated to see if she was competent to stand trial (an insanity test). the judge granted it and she was evsluated and is competent for trial. she isnt insane.

[Memories for Life]

Originally Posted by cbtslave4u2

Her lawyers tried that last weekend. They filled a motion to have her evaluated to see if she was competent to stand trial (an insanity test). the judge granted it and she was evsluated and is competent for trial. she isnt insane.

That's a standard play by any attorney anywhere for a murder case. It's simple to convince a judge with "The victim was murdered, Judge! Who in their sane mind would do that?" When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona earlier this year, it was easy to have the Judge authorize the evaluation -- that guy looks like his elevator doesn't go anywhere near the top floor!

[Memories for Life]

Originally Posted by Bigbear

Were the hell are you getting your facts from

From the most trusted name in News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/24...-murder-trial/

[cbtslave4u2]

Foxnews isn't news. it's all opinion and lies, even online. the only real news on fox is presented by Shep.

[Bigbear]

Originally Posted by Memories for Life

From the most trusted name in News:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/24...-murder-trial/

Sorry to inform you thats not a good source

[nellybell]

It hasn't be mentioned around here a lot so I'm a little shakey in on a fair amount of the details. From what I've seen and heard though, she was a bit of a crap mother, whether or not she killed the kid. While the child was still missing she was out partying not looking terribly worried about her child.

The whole defence has been all over the map, jumping from insanity to "daddy touched me" but never really focusing on trying to put in reasonible doubt to try and clear herself.

Not looking so good really.

[slave1987]

I've been following bits and pieces of it, seems the defence are taking a 'shotgun' approach, they're scattering theories all over the place to try and create reasonable doubt. Not sure whether or not she actually did it, but I think that there's enough questions left unanswered to get a not guilty based on reasonable doubt.

Best bit of the trial that I saw was her defence lawyer trying to explain how files get deleted from the computer whilst questioning a computer expert. He said "I know what you're talking about and you know what you're talking about but to simplify it for the jury..." He then went on to give an extremely complicated(and wrong) description of how files are deleted from a computer.

[cbtslave4u2]

Originally Posted by Memories for Life

That's a standard play by any attorney anywhere for a murder case. It's simple to convince a judge with "The victim was murdered, Judge! Who in their sane mind would do that?" When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona earlier this year, it was easy to have the Judge authorize the evaluation -- that guy looks like his elevator doesn't go anywhere near the top floor!

yes, i know. i was responding to someone who said "they should claim insanity"

[Bigbear]

Originally Posted by nellybell

It hasn't be mentioned around here a lot so I'm a little shakey in on a fair amount of the details. From what I've seen and heard though, she was a bit of a crap mother, whether or not she killed the kid. While the child was still missing she was out partying not looking terribly worried about her child.

The whole defence has been all over the map, jumping from insanity to "daddy touched me" but never really focusing on trying to put in reasonible doubt to try and clear herself.

Not looking so good really.

Well I agree she wasnt horribly saddened or upset but maybe going out parting kept her from breaking down and losing it some people cope diffrent ways with thing now I know its a bad way to cope but if thats how she did it then she has every right to cope whatever way she seems fit

[CookieeMonsterr]

I think she did kill her afterall all the stuff they found pretty much does give it away and i think they wont kill her i think tehy will make her suffer with life in jail..

[cbtslave4u2]

the jury started deliberations this morning. we should know what they convict her of at any moment. it shouldnt take more than a week for them to deciede.

[nellybell]

Originally Posted by Bigbear

Well I agree she wasnt horribly saddened or upset but maybe going out parting kept her from breaking down and losing it some people cope diffrent ways with thing now I know its a bad way to cope but if thats how she did it then she has every right to cope whatever way she seems fit

I agree that if that is how she coped then so be it. However, wasn't that what she was doing before? Also, wasn't her going out and being able to party one of the reasons presented to originally kill her child? Or at least make her child pass out so she could do as she wished?